Fracking in the West -

oscarBravo

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, it looks like the weight of opinion is against tracking, still though the way that the US went about was an absolute joke.

Bear in mind that in the US, pregnant women are advised not to eat fish because it's taken for granted that fish contains high levels of mercury.

Environmental disasters in the US don't translate directly to Europe.

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

Does well regulated fracking cause massive water pollution though? (I don't know) I'm just sceptical of using the US as a marker for what would happen here given it's so poorly regulated there.

Well regulated fracking?

Nesf, i think you're still missing the point...let me try again;

• Fracking is pumping many known and unknown toxic chemicals underground into water tables, regulated or not.
• How do you regulate where water and toxic chemicals go deep underground on widely used aquifers?
• How well it was regulated has nothing to do with anything. There are no half measures here, or 'Fracking-lite' concoctions-it's a one size fits all proprietary bundle of chemicals that are formulated to explode underground at depths.
• US or Ireland, shale rock is shale rock

If you need any more clarification here please let me know, its quite concerning that you can't make the leap between fracking being somehow different in different parts of the world, and the fact that it is actually the same thing everywhere, regulation or not. The only regulation you can do on Fracking, is hwo many companies have licences and where they are allowed to drill.

The question is not whether it is regulated or not.
The question is whether it is allowed or not.
It's that simple.

oscarBravo

frackingishell wrote: »

• Fracking is pumping many known and unknown toxic chemicals underground into water tables, regulated or not.

Oxymoron. "Well-regulated" precludes pumping unknown - or, indeed, toxic - chemicals into the ground.

frackingishell

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bear in mind that in the US, pregnant women are advised not to eat fish because it's taken for granted that fish contains high levels of mercury.

Environmental disasters in the US don't translate directly to Europe.

What's your point? That Fracking in the US shale rock could possibly be more likely to cause damage than in our shale rock? Is our Irish rock somehow better quality and stronger?

Yes, i'm being smart here, as i'm struggling to see your point in relation to Fracking.

frackingishell

[QUOTE=oscarBravo;
73437600]Oxymoron. "Well-regulated" precludes pumping unknown - or, indeed, toxic - chemicals into the ground.[/QUOTE]

aha, excellent point OscarBravo, thank you. It's the very point i'm trying to make

Fracking can't be well regulated. Because Fracking, IS pumping unknown-indeed toxic, chemicals underground. And they wont tell the US authorities what some of the chemicals are based on the fact it's intellectual property. Possibly (probably) also because they're some very serious nasty chemicals.

I'm glad you noticed.

(oh, and technically (or otherwise), i never used an oxymoron..not sure what you're on about there OscarBravo, check your dictionary- i never said anything was well regulated.....but lets not get bogged down in semantics, it's enough for me to point it out)

nesf

frackingishell wrote: »

Well regulated fracking?

Nesf, i think you're still missing the point...let me try again;

• Fracking is pumping many known and unknown toxic chemicals underground into water tables, regulated or not.
• How do you regulate where water and toxic chemicals go deep underground on widely used aquifers?
• How well it was regulated has nothing to do with anything. There are no half measures here, or 'Fracking-lite' concoctions-it's a one size fits all proprietary bundle of chemicals that are formulated to explode underground at depths.
• US or Ireland, shale rock is shale rock

If you need any more clarification here please let me know, its quite concerning that you can't make the leap between fracking being somehow different in different parts of the world, and the fact that it is actually the same thing everywhere, regulation or not. The only regulation you can do on Fracking, is hwo many companies have licences and where they are allowed to drill.

The question is not whether it is regulated or not.
The question is whether it is allowed or not.
It's that simple.

You could regulate where pumping was allowed to minimize damage to major aquifers. Etc.

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

You could regulate where pumping was allowed to minimize damage to major aquifers. Etc.

this is true. But we don't know where all the ground water links up to aquifers as...noones been underground to see- and noone will be...so, in short (and not trying to sound rude here)..you can't regulate it to minimize damage as you've said. And minimised damage is still damage for very little benefit to anyone but international energy companies.... and how will we know it's minimised? Because they told us so?! Yah, right.... All we know is that the aquifers are in the shale rock regions- that's how water can flow around down there- visualise it.

And, We can't send a fact finding mission down there before or AFTER to follow every gallon of toxic chemicals hundreds of metres underground to check if it's minimised...

You'll get it eventually Nesf. Here's a new word for me and you;

Un-regulatable!

nesf

frackingishell wrote: »

this is true. But we don't know where all the ground water links up to aquifers as...noones been underground to see- and noone will be...so, in short (and not trying to sound rude here)..you can't regulate it to minimize damage as you've said. And minimised damage is still damage for very little benefit to anyone but international energy companies.... and how will we know it's minimised? Because they told us so?! Yah, right.... All we know is that the aquifers are in the shale rock regions- that's how water can flow around down there- visualise it.

And, We can't send a fact finding mission down there before or AFTER to follow every gallon of toxic chemicals hundreds of metres underground to check if it's minimised...

You'll get it eventually Nesf. Here's a new word for me and you;

Un-regulatable!

Sure, but do you have to use toxic chemicals when fracking? They do so in the US definitely but perhaps there's other ways of doing it etc.

cavedave

nesf

You could regulate where pumping was allowed to minimize damage to major aquifers. Etc.

There is a point. Having spent a large amount of time underground (hence the username) I know a few hydrologists who work in the area. I'll ask them their opinion on the local aquifers. If they are very connected that would make localising pollution very difficult I would imagine.

I do like spending time in the underground rivers of Fermanagh, Cavan ,Sligo and Leitrim so if fracking does pollute the underground water I really want to know about it.

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

Sure, but do you have to use toxic chemicals when fracking? They do so in the US definitely but perhaps there's other ways of doing it etc.

aha again! Now we're getting somewhere. The process of Fracking and toxic chemicals are inseparable. There's an explsion down there that happens with these chemicals. This wouldn't work with just water.

Now, if it worked(facking) without toxic chemicals, dont you think the companies that have done this in the US (and want to do it here) would simply eliminate them and therefore satisfy the environmental worries and regulations that are stopping them making money at the moment? Think about that one.

This thing only works with toxic chemicals, many named, and many unnamed as they are holding the explosion concoction close to their chests as they don't want their R&D money to be wasted by every friendly neighbourhood 'fracker being able to mix this up in his grannies bathtub.

Nesf, in every sentence you've ever read about Fracking in shale rock, i want you to replace the word 'Fracking' with 'Pumping named and unnamed toxic chemicals underground at high pressure and causing explosions in aquifers'. You're saying the same thing.

Anything else wont get the gas out. If anything cleaner worked, they'd be doing it, if only to save themselves the regulatory hassle.

We're goin round in circles here. Alot of people are trying to explain his to you and you're asking the same questions...possibly in a wind up attempt, i'm not sure

nesf

frackingishell wrote: »

We're goin round in circles here. Alot of people are trying to explain his to you and you're asking the same questions...possibly in a wind up attempt, i'm not sure

We're not going around in circles, you are. I'm asking various questions about safety and regulation and you just repeat the same statements over and over again without backing them up.

oscarBravo

frackingishell wrote: »

Now, if it worked(facking) without toxic chemicals, dont you think the companies that have done this in the US (and want to do it here) would simply eliminate them and therefore satisfy the environmental worries and regulations that are stopping them making money at the moment? Think about that one.

You mean, like they've stopped dumping mercury into rivers and lakes to satisfy environmental worries and regulations?

The EPA in the US is all but powerless. Companies use toxic chemicals if they feel it's the most cost-effective way to do business, and environmental damage is not a major factor.

That's not the case here. You can't just pump toxic chemicals into aquifers.

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

We're not going around in circles, you are. I'm asking various questions about safety and regulation and you just repeat the same statements over and over again without backing them up.

no Nesf, you're going round in circles. Youre getting answers to your questions, but ignoring the answers and playing devil's advocate for the sake of it. Short of coming into your house and pumping this stuff into your garden, i don't know how much more i can back it up- much of the information to back it up is on this thread- look up the what-the-frack page for links for real scientific studies. Watch gasland for real world back up.

You're just continually ignoring the answers to your questions for the sake of it. You want back up? Educate yourself on the situation and come back to us, cos you asking the same questions, and us answering them politely with patience again and again is quite tiresome. You're being a bit selfish too by constantly asking the same questions over and over again, and not listening to the answers, and thereby making this a 'help Nesf understand' thread, instead of a viable fracking thread. If you believe those answers are untrue- then do some research and don't be so lazy to just keep making the same inane hypotheses again and again ad nauseum...contribute something of value.

You keep saying you don't know about this stuff, yet you keep banging on that if it was regulated maybe it would be ok. Go find out if it what im saying is true- that fracking is fracking, and the formula stays the same, and if aquifers can't be mapped.

Noones saying you have to agree with me. But making suggestions over and over again while acknowledging you know nothing about this stuff is a waste of your time, the readers time, and most definitely my time.

nesf

frackingishell wrote: »

no Nesf, you're going round in circles. Youre getting answers to your questions, but ignoring the answers and playing devil's advocate for the sake of it. Short of coming into your house and pumping this stuff into your garden, i don't know how much more i can back it up- much of the information to back it up is on this thread- look up the what-the-frack page for links for real scientific studies. Watch gasland for real world back up.

You're just continually ignoring the answers to your questions for the sake of it. You want back up? Educate yourself on the situation and come back to us, cos you asking the same questions, and us answering them politely with patience again and again is quite tiresome. You're being a bit selfish too by constantly asking the same questions over and over again, and not lsitening to the answers. If you believe those answers are untrue- then do some research and don't be so lazy to just keep making the same inane hypotheses again and again ad nauseum..

Let me make this clear.

a) On this forum the onus is on you, not your questioner, to provide back up. Telling someone to educate themselves is not acceptable.

b) Each question I asked was different, that you soapboxed your position and repeated the same statements ad nauseum is your problem not mine. Soapboxing is also not allowed on this forum. Sure push on side of the argument but engage more with the opposition.

frackingishell

oscarBravo wrote: »

You mean, like they've stopped dumping mercury into rivers and lakes to satisfy environmental worries and regulations?

The EPA in the US is all but powerless. Companies use toxic chemicals if they feel it's the most cost-effective way to do business, and environmental damage is not a major factor.

That's not the case here. You can't just pump toxic chemicals into aquifers.

Oh my god. You've once again made my point, but you're arguing with me?? Can you read?

I said they don't care about the environment but if this could be done without the toxic chemicals then they would to save themselves hassle. IE THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT THE AWFUL CHEMICALS...jesus.......actually, you know what, im not arsed, You have to be taking the piss, you can't be serious. And if you are, i feel sorry for you.

I'm new to this boards.ie lark, but it seems to me there's a few people taking the serious piss on here. you have to be taking the piss. And you're a five star boards general at taking the piss it seems by your stars there. Good work.

nesf

frackingishell wrote: »

Oh my god. You've once again made my point, but you're arguing with me?? Can you read?

I said they don't care about the environment but if this could be done without the toxic chemicals then they would to save themselves hassle. IE THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT THE AWFUL CHEMICALS...jesus.......actually, you know what, im not arsed, You have to be taking the piss, you can't be serious. And if you are, i feel sorry for you.

I'm new to this boards.ie lark, but it seems to me there's a few people taking the serious piss on here. you have to be taking the piss. And you're a five star boards general at taking the piss it seems by your stars there. Good work.

You are really close to a ban you know if you continue with this crap. Play the ball not the man, argue the point don't just soapbox and get pissed off if someone disagrees with you. Etc.

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

Let me make this clear.

a) On this forum the onus is on you, not your questioner, to provide back up. Telling someone to educate themselves is not acceptable.

b) Each question I asked was different, that you soapboxed your position and repeated the same statements ad nauseum is your problem not mine. Soapboxing is also not allowed on this forum. Sure push on side of the argument but engage more with the opposition.

(a) the onus is on me? I came on here and responded to that cavedave chap. Im saying educate yoruself because you keep saying you don't know abotu this after every statement you make on Fracking. You're like Frank Abignaile in the emergency room- you're bluffing your way around, and then putting everything on the other person when you're asked to make a contribution. Now im not gonna go quoting a million times and rub your face in it, im classier than that. but if you look back, youll see that. You should go read some of the reports instead of expecting me to educate you. I don't even know you. I've been givng you the benefits of my own research, and you havent accepted it. Thats fine, but at some point you must realise you speculating on something you admit you know nothing about is pretty pointless, most of all for you. I mean, are you waiting on the Irish government to come up and hold your hand through the process? Do you study yourself for the leaving cert, or did someone come around and read a book for you? get my drift? I think we've learned in the past few years that we have to do our own learning on matters of natural importance.

(b) I have engaged considerably with you, and you can't sayi havent. Why don't you engage with me? Why not look into some of the things i've said instead of just shooting stuff off your cuff repeatedly, stuff that i've ben courteous to keep addressing patiently? I don't even know you, you're one guy, cavedave is one guy, & i'm genuinely trying to let you know what i know. If you want to f**k that back in my face by saying im soapboxing and continually pushing the concept that this can be regulated to everyone while admiting you know nothing about it,and im telling you it cant be regulated, then that's your prerogative. But it's damn rude to tell me off for ENGAGING with you, a stranger, because i genuinely a passionate about something. You've some nerve. So stick it, and find someone else to take your ONUS, and pander to you the almighty 'opposition' (i wasnt aware we were opposition btw) and your inability to look **** up and make a cogent point on the subject.

Honestly, at some point surely you have to say to yourself 'eh, wait a minute, i dont know anything about this, i think i'll do my own research'. Or does everyone on boards feed info on demand to you like roman emporers used to be fed grapes?

frackingishell

nesf wrote: »

You are really close to a ban you know if you continue with this crap. Play the ball not the man, argue the point don't just soapbox and get pissed off if someone disagrees with you. Etc.

hang on. he's arguing with me and yet making the same point as me Nesf. At some point i've got to call foul. He has to be taking the piss.

frackingishell

Well, that's what hitler did to his detractors. Banned them. Classy..

frackingishell

I'mn banned? well thats constructive. Ban me because im saying you should go and read some reports. Jesus, it's true what my friend said. When it comes down to it, you can't actually say what you want on here if it disagrees with what amod says.

nevermind this battle will be fought in government, and if needs be, on well sites. Not on boards.ie. And it will be won too.

nesf

Not banned, I reconsidered it and passed it onto to Scofflaw to deal with.

frackingishell

well, i dont think i should be banned for telling it as i see it. But of course i would say that.

Banned or not, i still think you need to go and do some research Nesf. If you're participating in a discussion on something, you should at least know whats out there in the public domain.

You Telling us maybe it would be ok if it was regulated repeatedly, then me telling you why it can't be regulated if allowed due to the logistics over the whole thing (repeatedly, out of genuine patience- if you were a mate in the pub over a pint i'd have told you '**** off you're taking the p*ss!' a long time ago :-) )...and then you not even researching to back up your ideas even a little bit as you don't agree with me, is a sure fire recipe for nobody getting anywhere and a neverending circular argument and us all wasting our time.

Please go read the scientific reports linked on the what the frack page. Take some time to do it, watch the movie gasland, and educate yourself on a what is a huge issue for your country, and your kids, and future generations..

Good night

frackingishell

have a read of this for a bit of backup . ( sure he might have made it up, sure anyone can say things might be different here, but they wont. This is a messy process, and it's the same everywhere. You cant control millions of gallons being pumped into the ground of water and toxic chemicals. You just can't.)
so here goes;

He listed numerous problems: mares aborting foals, studs becoming sterile, goats having stillbirths, and his own health problems. He also spoke of how spills were covered up with dirt instead of reported, and a persistently leaking condensate tank. When Roles finally got a toxicology screen he discovered high levels of benzene, toluene, xylene and a long list of related chemicals in his blood.


“Sure, we earned a little money,” Roles said. “But our property was ruined.”

link here

Scofflaw

We're goin round in circles here. Alot of people are trying to explain his to you and you're asking the same questions...possibly in a wind up attempt, i'm not sure

Since we seem to have reached something of an impasse, and since nesf asked - the problem is that you're not responding to what's being asked. You've claimed that toxic chemicals are 'inseparable' from the process of hydraulic fracturing. You've been asked to prove that claim. You've responded by providing examples of the use of toxic chemicals in fracking.

Unfortunately, that toxic chemicals have been used doesn't prove that they're necessary. Your response to that has been to ask why companies would use toxic chemicals if they didn't have to - the answer to which is that they may be either cheaper or more effective than less toxic alternatives.

So, so far nothing you've put forward demonstrates the central point in that claim, which is that even under a regulatory regime which we might expect to insist on the use of less toxic alternatives, there is no such alternative.

There are almost always less toxic alternatives to the chemicals used in drilling, and they get used in regulatory regimes which insist on their use - in the British offshore sector, chemicals are regularly used and claimed as vital which are not allowed in the Norwegian offshore - yet the Norwegians manage to drill anyway.

Now, before you come back at me with a lot of response, I'll point out my background - I graduated as a geologist, and have worked both in the oil industry abroad and in groundwater here. I have a further degree in environmental science. So I know that a lot of what you're saying here is entirely above board - fracking is unpredictable, particularly in Irish bedrock, which is often highly fractured and highly variable. Most of our aquifer porosity is fracture porosity, but groundwater is not a high-profile resource here, and last time I looked, most of our aquifer fracturing was very poorly studied.

So I agree that the fissuring resulting from fracking will be relatively unpredictable, is highly likely to join up with existing and poorly understood fissure permeability, is highly likely to join up with conduit flow in local/regional karstified aquifers, that there will be aquifer contamination with any chemicals used in drilling/fracturing, and that by and large drilling chemicals, even of the reduced-toxicity variety, aren't something you want in your water.

None of which changes the fact that you've failed to answer a perfectly reasonable question. Repeatedly insisting that the chemicals involved in fracking are necessarily going to be toxic because toxic chemicals were used elsewhere doesn't answer the question - it only demonstrates that your beliefs on the issue are less than solidly founded. If you're espousing fracking as a cause, I'd suggest that you sort out the lack of evidence there.

Nor does it change the fact that you've responded extremely poorly to being asked to prove your contention that the chemicals used will be as toxic as those used elsewhere.

And, yes, it's part of the rules of the forum - if you can't demonstrate something to be true, don't claim it. I don't see that as unreasonable, since otherwise we have to treat seriously the claim that the world is run by shape-shifting lizard people, but that it's OK because we'll be taken up in the Rapture before their climate change scam panics the world's sheeple into accepting biochipping. So don't get your nose out of joint over being asked to provide some solid evidence for your claims (and no, campaign websites aren't solid evidence, although they may reference some) - you want to convince people of the dangers of fracking (otherwise why are you here?), so it's up to you to show that what you're claiming is true.

Finally, don't argue with moderation decisions on thread, because such arguments are off-topic. Do it by PM, or take it to Feedback/Dispute Resolution if you feel you're being unfairly treated. And, no, this post doesn't count as moderation from that perspective - but if you continue to react to people asking for evidence by telling them what idiots they are, then yes, you'll get banned, because you'll be wasting everyone's time, including your own.

regards,
Scofflaw

nesf

frackingishell wrote: »

well, i dont think i should be banned for telling it as i see it. But of course i would say that.

Banned or not, i still think you need to go and do some research Nesf. If you're participating in a discussion on something, you should at least know whats out there in the public domain.

You Telling us maybe it would be ok if it was regulated repeatedly, then me telling you why it can't be regulated if allowed due to the logistics over the whole thing (repeatedly, out of genuine patience- if you were a mate in the pub over a pint i'd have told you '**** off you're taking the p*ss!' a long time ago :-) )...and then you not even researching to back up your ideas even a little bit as you don't agree with me, is a sure fire recipe for nobody getting anywhere and a neverending circular argument and us all wasting our time.

Please go read the scientific reports linked on the what the frack page. Take some time to do it, watch the movie gasland, and educate yourself on a what is a huge issue for your country, and your kids, and future generations..

Good night

People are not expected to "educate themselves" to participate in discussions on here. People are entitled to ask speculative questions and get answers to them. Never tell someone to go off and read scientific reports ever on this forum, it's extremely rude and if they backed up what you say you should be linking to them in the first place!

This is what is expected of you on here and is not open to discussion or debate. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

frackingishell

scofflaw- i never called anyone an idiot. I asked were they taking the piss, as they were making the same point a i was in their points, and yet seems to be trying to say i said something different.

Nesf- you kept saying the same thing- the repeated answers weren't good enough for you, so i suggested you go educate yoruself on the subject. This wasn't intended to offend, i jsut thoguht you might be getting as sick of saying the same thing over and over like i was.

Scofflaw- Fracking can't be done with less toxic chemicals- or else they'd do it NOW without toxic chemicals, and open their concoction up to scrutiny, and start making money from the gas for themselves. The fact they haven't done this, means fracking can't be done without the chemicals. It's that simple, no matter what way you want to wrangle it.

Have a lovely day everyone.

cavedave

frackingishell scofflaw- i never called anyone an idiot

Two days ago you said you needed profesional help to decide if you were calling someone an idiot. And then never got back with your promised opinion on what you were saying.

cavedave

Are you saying that i am stupid here?


frackingishell

Dave, i'll have to consult my legal team before i answer those to be honest. I'll get back to you soon....i promise.

frackingishell

Christ cavedave- you love your quotes don't you? I'd say your missus loves this kind of irrelevant nitpicking.

Anyway, i'm broke, and i'm paying for that professional assessment on layaway. As promised, i'll let you know when i know.

But, to nitpick, i never gave a time limit on it.

Smashing contribution there cavedave, keep up the good work.

Scofflaw

frackingishell wrote: »

Christ cavedave- you love your quotes don't you? I'd say your missus loves this kind of irrelevant nitpicking.

Anyway, i'm broke, and i'm paying for that professional assessment on layaway. As promised, i'll let you know when i know.

But, to nitpick, i never gave a time limit on it.

Smashing contribution there cavedave, keep up the good work.

OK - we've tried to explain that this kind of thing is not acceptable, and it appears you don't listen. 3 day ban for muppetry, and the usual warning that repeat offences will attract progressively longer bans.

moderately,
Scofflaw

nacho libre

possibly a stupid question, but if this process can be done with less toxic chemicals? Why haven't the companies involved in fracking in the USA started using less toxic chemicals to have the ban on fracking rescinded in numerous US states? Is it because the alternatives involve greater costs? Are they simply trying to hold out for as long as possible before switching to less toxic chemicals?

ei.sdraob

nacho libre wrote: »

possibly a stupid question, but if this process can be done with less toxic chemicals? Why haven't the companies involved in fracking in the USA started using less toxic chemicals to have the ban on fracking rescinded in numerous US states? Is it because the alternatives involve greater costs? Are they simply trying to hold out for as long as possible before switching to less toxic chemicals?

What dangerous and toxic chemicals?

94.62% water,
5.24% sand,
0.05% friction reducer,
0.05% antimicrobial,
0.03% hydrochloric acid and
0.01% scale inhibitor


The actual chemicals are used in many industrial and even domestic applications: polyacrylamide as a friction reducer, bromine, methanol and naphthalene as antimicrobials, hydrochloric acid and ethylene glycol as scale inhibitors, and butanol and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether as
surfactants. At high dilution these are unlikely to pose a risk to human health in the event they reach groundwater.

But can they even infiltrate groundwater? The aquifers used for well water in states like Pennsylvania lie just a few hundred feet below the surface, whereas the shale gas is several thousand feet below. Seismic studies show that there is approximately one mile of solid rock between the fracking fissures and the aquifer

The well pipe running down through the aquifer is encased in alternating layers of concrete and steel and is generally triple-encased down to the depth of aquifers (less than 500 feet). For the well to produce gas it is vital that there are no leaks of either gas or fracking fluids into the aquifer or any other strata, so it is not in the company‘s interest to allow this.

nacho libre

ei.sdraob wrote: »

What dangerous and toxic chemicals?

Between 2005 and 2009, 14 leading oil and gas companies used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and components, some extremely toxic and carcinogenic, including lead and benzene, a new Congressional report shows.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305746#ixzz1TJnEpB4Y

ei.sdraob

nacho libre wrote: »

Between 2005 and 2009, 14 leading oil and gas companies used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and components, some extremely toxic and carcinogenic, including lead and benzene, a new Congressional report shows.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305746#ixzz1TJnEpB4Y

It is not in their interest to have any leaks, especially into the groundwater

Intel which more than likely has a microchip powering your computer also uses a **** load of chemicals and Dublin water, once again it is not in their interest to feck up.

On the other hand Moneypoint down Shannon and the like are quite literary dumping **** into the air including lead and mercury. All while all our "green" windmills are having a nap today with 30-50MW only > http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/



The question you should be asking is short of reverting to stone age existence and while ruling out nuclear power and while our windmills are scratching their rears what is the lesser of all evils, gas, oil, coal or turf to power our lives

Scofflaw

The question you should be asking is short of reverting to stone age existence and while ruling out nuclear power and while our windmills are scratching their rears what is the lesser of all evils, gas, oil, coal or turf to power our lives

Sure - why worry about safety, or pollution, or any of those annoying little stumbling blocks in the path of progress? Progress is necessary, and therefore should not be inhibited, and companies invariably do what's best because it's not in their interests not to.

amused,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - why worry about safety, or pollution, or any of those annoying little stumbling blocks in the path of progress? Progress is necessary, and therefore should not be inhibited, and companies invariably do what's best because it's not in their interests not to.

amused,
Scofflaw

Sure why worry about pollution when you can just outsource it in order to produce your not so green tech > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6946038.ece

Greenies are opposed to everything but have no realistic solutions to provide energy to the modern world

Macha

Amazing how you manage to lump anyone with a slight concern for pollution under the heading of "greenies". It shows the lack of complexity in your thoughts on environmental issues. As well as a childish penchant for name calling.

And ignoring what people write. I wrote earlier in this thread:

"Of course all of this must be balanced against the fuel that the gas extracted through fracking would be displacing."

ei.sdraob

Ah yes it was me who called the Greens, Greens :rolleyes:

What are you going to do? ban me from this forum for having an opinion different from you as was already done in the Sustainability forum where I dare to point out that current crop of "green" thinking is far from green and sweeps the issues under the carpet by exporting pollution to other countries.

I am of the opinion that the Green movement on the balance are dangerous to the environment and people, an ideology that favours one type of engineering and science (anything to do with windmills,batteries and efficiency) oh and "modifying behaviour via taxation", while ignoring and being opposed to any other technologies such as gas extraction in case of this thread, nuclear energy, and genetic modification.

As far as I am concerned if climate change is a great treat to humanity as is being portrayed we should use all tools at our disposal, not prance around with a holier than thou attitude at anything that doesnt spin in the wind.

cavedave

ei.sdraob

I am of the opinion that the Green movement on the balance are dangerous to the environment and people, an ideology that favours one type of engineering and science (anything to do with windmills,batteries and efficiency) oh and "modifying behaviour via taxation", while ignoring and being opposed to any other technologies such as gas extraction in case of this thread, nuclear energy, and genetic modification.

I happen to agree with you that the green movement is wrong about many things. GM crops, nuclear, population numbers, urbanisation are areas I think they are wrong on.

But the question here is not about the green movement in general. It is about whether the pollution and risks of fracking are worth it. Scofflaw has presented evidence about how dirty mining in one country can be much cleaner in another. You and I have presented evidence that coal is really nasty.

But the nub of the issue seems to be how dirty or how clean would fracking be in Ireland. Rather than if Green advocates are occasionally utopian and unrealistic.

ei.sdraob

cavedave wrote: »

But the nub of the issue seems to be how dirty or how clean would fracking be in Ireland. Rather than if Green advocates are occasionally utopian and unrealistic.

If there are concerns over pollution then this can be dealt with by attaching stringent testing/reporting requirements to any licenses given out, you know it might give a purpose to a few people working over at the EPA.

Objecting to each and any technology on the grounds that something might go wrong is silly, If we took the same attitude/stance to any technology with so much potential to help us we would still be living in a feudal system of the dark ages (mind you some members of the Green movement could be described as Luddites and would love nothing better than for the world to revert to some agrarian utopia).

I could also go about few pages pointing out the the current favourite spinning tech of the Green movement is far from green or effective
and also produces many externalities, but these are quickly waved away,
or god forbid land you with a ban from the forum for daring to have an opinion different to the moderator.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote:

Sure why worry about pollution when you can just outsource it in order to produce your not so green tech > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6946038.ece

Greenies are opposed to everything but have no realistic solutions to provide energy to the modern world

And you appear to be in favour of anything they're opposed to simply because they're opposed to it. Unfortunately, the article you cite makes an good case for environmental legislation in China, rather than a case against green technology or environmental legislation here.

cavedave wrote:

I happen to agree with you that the green movement is wrong about many things. GM crops, nuclear, population numbers, urbanisation are areas I think they are wrong on.

Heck, even I agree with him about some of those things, but they're being used here as an ad hominem argument that attempts to lump all "greenies" together as cranks in order to dismiss any argument against fracking as cranky, rather than addressing the issues in question.

I'm not opposed to fracking on ideological grounds, but I find neither the "nothing to see here, totally safe" message from the corporate PR nor the gung-ho idiocy of free-market worshippers convincing. There are real problems in fracking, particularly in poorly known lithologies close to poorly known karst aquifers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

And you appear to be in favour of anything they're opposed to simply because they're opposed to it. Unfortunately, the article you cite makes an good case for environmental legislation in China, rather than a case against green technology or environmental legislation here.

Actually my point regarding that article as was made in a parallel thread/forum is that if all the externalities of green technologies were addressed via environmental legislation then green technology such as wind generators and electric cars would become prohibitively expensive. All the current Green policies are doing is outsourcing pollution to likes of China.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heck, even I agree with him about some of those things, but they're being used here as an ad hominem argument that attempts to lump all "greenies" together as cranks in order to dismiss any argument against fracking as cranky, rather than addressing the issues in question.
I'm not opposed to fracking on ideological grounds, but I find neither the "nothing to see here, totally safe" message from the corporate PR nor the gung-ho idiocy of free-market worshippers convincing.

The green movement is splintered into many strands but one thing that is common to the lot is the use of politics of fear, the whole repent now or face Armageddon (erm global warming) and in the process doing damage
I linked already do a report from a Global Warming Policy Foundation no less! which concludes that on balance "fracking" is not as bad as certain small groups are trying to make it.
If you want to call the Professors, Doctors, Sir's and Lords who put their names to the above linked document as "free-market" worshippers then that's your choice, the conclusion to this report is "nothing to see move along".

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are real problems in fracking, particularly in poorly known lithologies close to poorly known karst aquifers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Then more scientific research is required, but I am afraid all attempts at scientific research would be stifled by extremists from the Green movement,
who practically killed all GM research in europe by their actions as an example.

Or just look at all the ruckus over a certain gas pipe in Mayo, little hope of any balanced approach when you have guys like this complaining about a pipe, never mind actual drilling.

MadsL

News:
An Taisce Chairman, Charles Stanley Smith calls on the Minister for Communications, Energy & Natural Resources, Labour Party‘s Pat Rabbitte, to organise public consultation to explain the current situation and possible future scenarios of hydraulic fracturing.

Macha

One concern is that our EPA has no experience in licenses for fracking. What data and models will be used to carry out an EIA?

feicim

MadsL wrote: »

News:
An Taisce Chairman, Charles Stanley Smith calls on the Minister for Communications, Energy & Natural Resources, Labour Party‘s Pat Rabbitte, to organise public consultation to explain the current situation and possible future scenarios of hydraulic fracturing.

It looks like a done deal to me..

According to page 5 of that report "many" of the problems in america could have been avoided with rigorous regulation.

The writers seem to be of the view that "rigorous codes of practice" coupled with "equally robust (financial?) penalties" will do the trick.

Expect Mr. Rabbitte / Labour / Fine Gael to trot out this line in a few months when their "consultations" are "finished".

thebman

Will be interesting to see if there are political pressures to become a test bed for this for other nations in Europe now we are being bailed out by them.

I expect there to be accusations at least by the opponents of it.

Scofflaw

I linked already do a report from a Global Warming Policy Foundation no less! which concludes that on balance "fracking" is not as bad as certain small groups are trying to make it.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is Nigel Lawson's anti-climate change 'think tank', supported by high-up Tories and the UK's golden circle of industry. It's not exactly an unbiased source, I'm afraid.

If you want to call the Professors, Doctors, Sir's and Lords who put their names to the above linked document as "free-market" worshippers then that's your choice, the conclusion to this report is "nothing to see move along".

Would it be unkind to point out that you quite happily dismiss the very much larger number of authorities who agree that climate change is happening? Or that calling Nigel Lawson a "free market worshipper" is hardly contentious?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Macha wrote: »

One concern is that our EPA has no experience in licenses for fracking. What data and models will be used to carry out an EIA?

Surely our regulatory bodies are completely competent to supervise the activities of a complex multinational industry's representatives in Ireland? What could possibly go wrong?

amused,
Scofflaw

sarkozy

Having seen the 'Gasland' documentary in Donegal last month, I'm very concerned about the effect of fracking. I want to know more, but it is, as yet, unproven technology.

What groups are out there currently engaging in the issue in a constructive way, particularly in Dublin and in Leitrim?

sarkozy

feicim wrote: »

It looks like a done deal to me..

According to page 5 of that report "many" of the problems in america could have been avoided with rigorous regulation.

The writers seem to be of the view that "rigorous codes of practice" coupled with "equally robust (financial?) penalties" will do the trick.

Expect Mr. Rabbitte / Labour / Fine Gael to trot out this line in a few months when their "consultations" are "finished".

I fear your gratuitous use of quote marks may be right.

Ireland has a poor record of licensing and enforcement, particularly in the natural resources sector. If fracking is still as destructive as it has been elsewhere, it will be all to easy to governments and corporations to play the blame-game until post-election amnesia wipes the slate clean.

Irish citizens cannot sleepwalk into this potential catastrophe.

cavedave

Scofflaw

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is Nigel Lawson's anti-climate change 'think tank', supported by high-up Tories and the UK's golden circle of industry. It's not exactly an unbiased source, I'm afraid.

I quoted from the GWPF in post 32 where they argued that Howarth fracking results in 20% more co2 paper is flawed. So if they are biased it might be worth taking their 50% less figure with a pinch of salt.